9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal") in ITA No. 867/Chandi/2000, for the assessment year 1997- 98, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding that the assessee has validly withdrawn its exemption u/s 10B, earlier claimed in the original return by validly filing a revised return u/s 139(5) on 31.3.98 in spite of the specific provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10B applicable for the relevant period? (b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in holding further that the assessee has rightly claimed the impugned interest as income from business source by ignoring the decision of the Apex Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 10B of the Act in the original return. Against the order of the CIT(A), the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 31.3.2005 dismissed the appeal. This gave rise to the revenue to approach this Court by way of the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue conceded that in so far as question (b) is concerned, no argument was raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, this question does not arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, question (b) is declined. 5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the assessee was justified in filing the revised return under Section 139 (5) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to for that purpose. In this view , we are fortified by the observations of the Allahbad High Court in Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra V. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 352, wherein it was observed that once a revised return has been filed under s.139(5), the original return is substituted by the revised return as a result of the amendments made in the original return by the revised return." 10. The Madras High Court in Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Ltd's case (supra) after noticing the judgments of this Court in Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. and Friends Corporation's cases (supra) had followed its earlier decision in Dasaprakash Bottling Co. Vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 9 and taken a contrary view as held by this Court. We are bound by the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arket conditions, the appellant probably felt that it would be impossible to maintain export sales to the extent of 75% of total sales in the following years. Therefore, prudency demanded that the assessee should not claim the exemption under section 10B of the I.T. Act. The explanation offered by the appellant sounds to be convincing. Since the appellant had filed the original return in time and the claim under section 10B had been made for the first time, he was free to withdraw the claim before any assessment was made. The addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the appellant was not competent to file the revised return and had no right or option to withdraw the claim under section 10B of the I.T. Act. Since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
